Yet Another Election Day

by Doctor Science

I'm getting ready to work the polls tomorrow, yet again. Don't forget to vote, those of you who have something to vote for. To my fellow Jerseyans: be especially sure to make the effort if you're not voting for Chris Christie. The rest of you can stay home, there's no need to make it a blowout. Please.

As you-all could probably predict, I *really* don't like Christie. I despise his bullying, and his short-sightedness, and his administration's sheer incompetence.

However, I am a New Jersey voter, and we are either the most cynical or the most realistic voters in the country, as a rule -- we regularly re-elect Congresspeople with what would, in other states, be toxic approval ratings. And I'm not going to say that we approve of cronyism and corruption, exactly, but we tend to approve of getting the job done. We also don't care much for ideals -- or even principles -- in a politician, if they get in the way of getting the job done.

I think a lot of Christie's very high approval ratings in the state, right now, are because when Sandy hit Christie proved that he has no Republican principles about "government handouts", he was willing to work with *anyone* to get the job done. He was willing to literally embrace Obama, at a time when most Republicans weren't -- and that counts for one hell of a lot. I think that's the overwhelming reason Christie might get 30% of the black vote tomorrow, which is astonishing by national Republican standards.

I've read the excerpt from Halperin & Heilemann's Double Down about Christie and the Romney campaign, and it's notable for not changing my opinion about Christie all that much, but reminding me how much I despise Romney.

Mitt also cared about fitness and was prone to poke fun at those who didn’t. (“Oh, there’s your date for tonight,” he would say to male members of his traveling crew when they spied a chunky lady on the street.) Romney marveled at Christie’s girth, his difficulties in making his way down the narrow aisle of the campaign bus. Watching a video of Christie without his suit jacket on, Romney cackled to his aides, “Guys! Look at that!”

Halperin is of course using weasel words (his native tongue). Mitt cared about *thinness*, not fitness. He poked fun at *fat people*. Nothing was better than a two-fer -- mocking one of his male crew who wasn't up to his standards, plus getting to point and laugh at a fat woman on the street.

Meanwhile, I'm not at all sure Christie's weight doesn't count as a net point in his favor, in Jersey. We know he's not going to be sanctimonious about it, and it is, face it, a "regular person" problem with which *many* of us can identify. The fact that he hasn't "solved" it just suggests that he's paying more attention to that core Jersey political value, getting the job done.

In further contrast to Romney, Christie is also a more forthright and in-your-face bully, which is a big part of his appeal here and nationwide. I'm not sure it's enough to get him through Republican primary season, especially since Republican primary voters notoriously pick the "next guy in line", which would probably be Santorum in 2016.

Talk about your local elections, the prospects for 2014 or even 2016, or whether Chris Christie can play in Peoria. You may talk about whether his weight is likely to be a pro (or con) for him nationally, but: *no fat jokes*. Don't be a Mitt Romney, that's not a good look on anyone.

Comments

[Laura Koerbeer]

How do you square his popularity based on "getting the job done" with the "sheer incompetence"?

Christie's the only electable Republican, mostly because the corporate media will see him as entertaining and promote him as a moderate. I wish he was a real moderate. I don't know if he has any real political convictions, though. He seems, oddly, to be another Romney with opinions that depend on who he is talking to.

I don't think his weight will count against him. (Why should it?) I think the bullying will help him with rightwing voters.

[Hartmut]

There were cynical calculations concerning both the Son of Cain and the Mormonbot that they could be used to get the White House for the GOP and then bullied to abdicate (or drop dead) in favor of the unelectable 'true' candidate in the Vice slot. I think there have been similar thoughts about Christie, i.e. his health risks could be seen as a feature from a certain POV, provided he could be settled with the 'proper' heir apparent.
The 'problem' is that Christie seems not to be the guy who would willingly accept a Cruz/Cuccinelli/RW-saviour-du-jour as a running mate for that very reason.

[DecidedFenceSitter]

Eh, as I like oral sex and more importantly keeping medical devices out of the parts of my female friends after they have sexually assualted and made pregnant my vote today in the Virginia elections is fairly straightforward. (Okay, I'm not sure there's one thing of Cuccinelli I agree with, but those two are the amusing reasons.)

I'm not thrilled with McAuliffe, but I am, honestly, voting for him and his platform and not just against Cuccinelli - my ideal candidate won't exist in Virginia, not any time in the next decade, if ever.

[cleek]

the primaries won't start for 18 months. at this point nobody knows anything about 2016.

[hairshirthedonist]

It starts with a 2 and ends with a 6.

I'm actually looking at our neighbors in PA. At the end of 2014, if things go the way they appear they will, my professional life is likely to improve, even if only marginally. Corbett's people are a nightmare around here. I don't deal directly with them, but, as the saying goes, sh1t runs downhill.

[Countme-In]

I dislike Christie intensely, but I have to say he wears his girth like Jackie Gleason or John Goodman.

Which is to say the man probably looks great on the dance floor.

Alone.

[joel hanes]

in-your-face bully, which is a big part of his appeal here and nationwide

You need to get out of the Boswash corridor more. Much of the nation perceives the NJ in-your-face style as "asshole" and despises it. New Yorkers seem to believe that other people secretly admire the pushy style; they are wrong.

Iowans won't vote for Christie, I predict. Neither will Minnesota, nor New Hampshire. I can't see an early big "win" to give his campaign wings.

Also, I doubt that Christie is physically capable of a Presidential campaign.

[Carleton Wu]

I think Christie in 2016 would alienate too many TPers to be successful; they are convinced that they are the core of the party & are being ignored (or betrayed) by their left wing.
They need their illusions scorched out of them, Goldwater-style, before they'll see the light (it'll sound like "America aint wat she used ta be", but will mean "I guess we arent runnin things after all"). Until then the right wing of the GOP will be increasingly restless, turning a sympathetic ear to the likes of Ted Cruz and his attacks on his own party's center.
And I think the GOP moderates see that too. So I think that we'll get a candidate of the far right, but regardless of which wing of the party they come from, it looks now like they'll have an impossible task getting everyone into the tent.

I still think Christie runs in 2016, but he won't let himself get dragged too far to the right. After getting whipped in the 2016 election, the GOP will be ready to turn to him in 2020 & the electorate will probably be ready to switch the WH by then anyway.
[ie this is Reagan redux, with Christie as Clinton]

[Matt McIrvin]

Sometime in the mid-Eighties, I remember successfully calling 1988 for GHWB and '92 for the Democrats by analogy to the 1830s, casting Reagan as Andrew Jackson and Bush as Martin van Buren, I suppose Clinton would be William Henry Harrison, except he didn't drop dead in office after a month.

But, you know, feats like that are easy to perform with very small sample sizes.

I think one of Nate Silver's last posts on the NYT site was one in which he analyzed the idea that the people get tired of the same party holding the White House after X number of years, and found no consistent pattern.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

I would pay money to see Christy confront a gaggle of Teabaggers who accuse him of being a RINO.

[Hartmut]

'Well, you forgot the h there', said the pachyderm and charged them. ;-)

[wj]

I would not be surprised if Christie is (if only subconsciously) making somewhat the same calculation as Carleton. He runs in 2016, and finishes second. I think he will come close, and do better in places like Iowa and Minnesota than Joel expects -- but not enough to win. Instead, the nomination goes to some ultra-extremist that the far right of the GOP feels will allow them to prove the truth of their theory that the way to win is to be more conservative, not more moderate.

And then, after an electoral disaster, Christie will be the semi-traditional "next in line" for the 2020 nomination. And in an environment where purity is finally taking a back seat to electability. How well he then does in the general election depends on what kind of a first term the 2016 winner has had.

[joel hanes]

Giuliani (a NY bully) skipped the Iowa straw poll rather than get the single digit he would have scored.

Iowans have a single digit they'd like to extend to Christie, if he shows up.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Instead, the nomination goes to some ultra-extremist that the far right of the GOP feels will allow them to prove the truth of their theory that the way to win is to be more conservative, not more moderate."

Setting aside that silly "ultra", I think Virginia demonstrates what conservatives would say if that didn't work: (And likely with some justice.) "Running conservative candidates may or may not be a way to win, but refusing to support conservative candidates if they get the nomination is certainly a way to lose."

You'll only have proof running conservative candidates isn't a route to victory, if the party establishment stops giving up on any race where a conservative wins the nomination, and supports the conservative candidates the way it would the establishment favorites.

[liberal japonicus]

Ah, the system never fails you, you can only fail the system.

[cleek]

i hope you're right, joel.

but i suspect there are plenty of Stick It To The Liberals types in the "conservative" base who would get a big kick out of Christie's attitude.

[ral]

I'm going out on a limb here and predicting that Christie has *no* chance in the 2016 Republican primaries. After his (nearly literal!) embrace of Obama he is anathema to the Tea Party types.

[I'm ignoring the very good advice, "never make predictions, especially about the future."]

[bobbyp]

Setting aside that silly "ultra"...

Well then, 'extremist' will have to do.

It is interesting that on the right, the base accuses the establishment of staying home and on the left, the establishment accuses the base of staying home.

Obviously the problem lies in the center. It does not seem to be able to make up it's mind. It may not hold.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not like there's any question they left him hanging, you just have to compare their spending in previous elections to this one.

As I've remarked before, given the party establishment's behavior, the only appropriate response when they start lecturing conservatives about the need to suck it up and support whatever candidate the party nominates is derisive laughter.

[Slartibartfast]

In the unlikely event that I ever run for public office, I'm running as an ultra-mega-maxi-extremist, just to have the big buildup in front of the big letdown where it belongs.

We stock our extremists in super, regular and large sizes.

[hairshirthedonist]

...given the party establishment's behavior, the only appropriate response when they start lecturing conservatives about the need to suck it up and support whatever candidate the party nominates is derisive laughter.

I'm not sure I get this. I can see not liking what the establishment does, but the derisive laughter strikes me as an inappropriate response. It looks like candidates need the establishment's support, so they've got you by the short hairs. Is that laughable? (It is to me, but I'm not a conservative.)

[cleek]

adding to this: but i suspect there are plenty of Stick It To The Liberals types in the "conservative" base who would get a big kick out of Christie's attitude.

you can see the same thing in the way the liberal base adores Hillary Clinton even though there's little evidence that any of her positions are significantly to the left of Obama's. the typical response to pointing this out is "but she's a fighter! and she won't take any of the GOP's crap!"

(yeah, maybe so. but i thought we were talking about policy?!)

to many, it doesn't matter that the results she'd be likely to get are pretty much the same as what Obama's been able to get; that's more than balanced because that she'd get those results with a feisty stick-it-to-em attitude. (which i think is probably a fantasy, but that's a different topic)

and i don't think that stick-it-to-em attitude is limited to the left. i think know there are a lot of "conservatives" who would be OK with a less-than-Pure President as long as he pissed-off enough liberals along the way.

in other words: Christie or Hillary make for good entertainment. and that matters to a lot of people.

[Laura Koerbeer]

There's always a problem of confusing style with substance.

[cleek]

or of preferring style over substance

[joel hanes]

I'm not aware of any evidence at all that Mrs. Clinton's policy ideas are more liberal in any way that President Obama's, or than her husband's.

What with 2016 bearing down on us, if such evidence exists, I'd very much like to be made aware of it.

Anyone ? ...

[Countme-In]

They are both to the right of Nelson Rockefeller, if that helps.

If I could open the Overton Window, I'd jump.

[bobbyp]

We stock our extremists in super, regular and large sizes.

What? No mini-extremists? ;)